ThePentaCON releases trailer

babazaroni said:
So Lyte, do you think the C-130 remote piloted the airliner toward the pentagon, and somehow it went off course north of the citgo, but the show had to go on and they hoped no one would notice?
Click to expand...

Huh?

Ummmmmmmm.....

No.

The c-130 had a completely different flight path as the passenger jet.

The accounts that say otherwise are fabrications.
 
Lyte Trip said:
If you don't believe me that's fine but the least you could do is respect my efforts and agree to view the testimony before pulling out all of your textbook debate tactics.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...
Are you so blind you think anybody here believes you? Want to buy some prime swampland in Florida or a bridge in Brooklyn?
 
Pardalis said:
:eek: Woah!

OK, let's recap.

You say you have eyewitness testimony that prove that flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but these very same eyewitnesses say that they saw the plane hit the building?

So basically, you just pick and choose whatever is in their testimony that fits your theory, and leave out the rest and say "they were fooled".

Come on man, either they were fooled, or they weren't.

Now which is it?
Click to expand...


I believe the citgo eyewitness accounts of the placement of the plane.

So will any honest critical thinker.

The details that they ALL relay happen to prove that the plane couldn't have toppled the light poles and damaged the building as outlined in the ASCE report.

They were completely unaware of this fact and even reacted in disbelief when I told them.

I have this reaction on camera for the star witness.
 
Lyte Trip, why are you ignoring the eyewitness account of Steve Riskus and the pictures he took? How did you determine he was fooled or lying and your witnesses were genuine?
 
Lyte Trip said:
I am not interested in debating a poodle.

I am interested in truth.
Click to expand...

I have undeniable proof that I am not a poodle. If you're interested in truth- then you should be just as interested (in not more) of providing evidence of that proof, and testing your hypothesis against reality. The best way to do that is to present it to other individuals, and openly accept their critique.

This- of course- is still not an answer to my question.

I called every previously published witness I could find numbers for and knocked on the doors of everyone in the neighborhood of the flight path in a quest for this truth.

I found it.

If you don't believe me that's fine but the least you could do is respect my efforts and agree to view the testimony before pulling out all of your textbook debate tactics.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...

It's not a "debate tactic" Lyte- it's logic. You cannot deny logic at the same time you claim to be using it. Logic does not simply start and stop at your whim. It's not a question of believing you, or your witnesses- it's a question of the facts- and your facts were not gathered, presented, or maintained in a rational and logical manner. That much is obvious.

If you weren't afraid to answer my question, it would immediately become obvious to you as well. (Assuming it already isn't.)

Did you try to look for alternative explanations of the witnesses claims? Did you bother to consider that your theory contradicts known facts? Did you look even beyond the witnesses?

So far your only answer in any direction of this is that everyone who disagrees with you is lying or paid off. This is unscientific- and does not account for the mountains of physical evidence which contradict your ridiculous claims.

These are just a few questions a true investigator wouldn't hesitate to think about if they were honestly interested in truth. Since you did not do these things- it's quite easy to dismiss your claims as unscientific, erroneous, and not based in fact.
 
Pardalis said:
And what about the part where they say they saw the plane hit the building?
Click to expand...

Well it's impossible to believe their independently corroborated placement of the plane while simultaneously believing their assertion that it hit the building.

You must choose one or the other.

Since most of them admit that the physical impact was concealed by the "fireball" and since they all place the plane on the same trajectory I am going with their placement of the plane.

All true critical thinkers will most certainly make the same choice.
 
A W Smith said:
for the fifth time i ask. Did you or did you not provide a barbecue for the witnesses? Or should we ask Russel Pickering?
Click to expand...

Oh, you weren't joking?

ETA: I read back in the thread and see what that remark was about. Sorry. :o
 
Last edited:
Totovader said:
These are just a few questions a true investigator wouldn't hesitate to think about if they were honestly interested in truth. Since you did not do these things- it's quite easy to dismiss your claims as unscientific, erroneous, and not based in fact.
Click to expand...

Ok Dr. toto.

I predict that you will feel otherwise after hearing the testimony.
 
Lyte Trip said:
I believe the citgo eyewitness accounts of the placement of the plane.

So will any honest critical thinker.
Click to expand...

Actually, if the witnesses were evenly split on whether the plane was north of the citgo, then the physical evidence would push me to believe it was not north of the citgo.

Sounds like you have only a couple of witnesses who believe this versus the 100 or so who do not. To impeach these other witnesses, you have to interview each and convince us they were incorrect. Somehow, I don't think you have done this.
 
~enigma~ said:
Lyte Trip, why are you ignoring the eyewitness account of Steve Riskus and the pictures he took? How did you determine he was fooled or lying and your witnesses were genuine?
Click to expand...

They were all fooled into believing the plane hit the building.

None had to lie for our hypothesis to be correct.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Well it's impossible to believe their independently corroborated placement of the plane while simultaneously believing their assertion that it hit the building.

You must choose one or the other.

Since most of them admit that the physical impact was concealed by the "fireball" and since they all place the plane on the same trajectory I am going with their placement of the plane.

All true critical thinkers will most certainly make the same choice.
Click to expand...

And how would you know they were wrong?

What would it take?

Science and physical evidence obviously doesn't do it for you- so what would? Other testimony?

You have a contradiction, Lyte- fine... but you're willfully choosing to dismiss the contradiction as that which contradicts your claim is lying, paid off, planted, etc- this is not only unscientific, but it's irrational. The difference between a conspiracist and a scientist could not be made any more clear for you.

To claim to be interested in science and logic- and then turn around and deny it is such a monumental contradiction that I am unable to comprehend how you think that "I don't want to debate" will satisfy it...
 
babazaroni said:
Actually, if the witnesses were evenly split on whether the plane was north of the citgo, then the physical evidence would push me to believe it was not north of the citgo.

Sounds like you have only a couple of witnesses who believe this versus the 100 or so who do not. To impeach these other witnesses, you have to interview each and convince us they were incorrect. Somehow, I don't think you have done this.
Click to expand...

Quite incorrect.

ALL witnesses at the citgo station place on the north of the station.

ZERO witnesses in the entire investigative body definitively place the plane on the south of the station.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom